Skip to main content
2:00 pm
of months ago, i explained my concern about proposals where citizenship is always over the next mountain. i want the pathway to be clear. i want citizenship to be attainable. this legislation has several triggers that have to be met before people can get their green cards. then they go in a state of limbo. trulye triggers attainable? >> one is the submission of the plans. one is the implementation of a national employer verification
2:01 pm
system. one is the implementation of an electronic entry-exit system. those triggers are already part of the plan. i believe we can satisfy them in the upcoming years. >> in the wake of the boston bombings, month raised concerns about security screenings. i don't believe the boston bombing is a reason to stop progress. i trust our law enforcement people to be able to handle that case. ur are thet in the world. i have no worry about that.
2:02 pm
it imposes on legislation. there are several provisions to make our country safer. >> let me start with what the process is now in share it that over the past four years we have increased the number and the coverage of the vetting that goes on. if someone is seeking asylum, they first have a screening interview to see whether they have presented any credible fear of persecution. that includes biographic and biometric information. they submit to a full-scale interview.
2:03 pm
this could be several hours. it is usually accompanied by affidavits. one of the things we do is re- fingerprint the individual to make sure it is the same individual. we vet and so forth. after a year, we can convert lpr status. you are vetted once again. after five years you can apply for naturalization. that is the current situation. it is very important.
2:04 pm
>> we heard testimony yesterday. i share this feeling that there is a principle behind this legislation legalize now and forest later.
2:05 pm
th is where i am coming from. i also you're assuming you read it. my questions come to some specifics. do you agree with my opening statement that upon enactment if it requires strategy before legalization begins? >> it requires plans for infrastructure and for border security. >> can tell the american people why they should trust the legislation to secure the border after 12 name people commit legal status and the ability to live and work freely in the country?
2:06 pm
>> the bill builds on the very large investthey he made with in the border. that the sustainment part is so important. that is where we have experienced the gaps. we build on that. secondly, the bill actually supports border security that two major drivers of migration across the border are labor and the fact it takes so long to get a legal visa. the bill deals with bo those problems in a way that gives us more metrics.
2:07 pm
it supports the border security measures already in place. >> the bill prohibits officers and renewing aliens to "appear eligible" for legalization until a final decision has been made. does this bill tie the hands of immigration eight hits in the same way the 1986 amnesty did? >> i do not believe so. did the bill does this say there running and move it as quickly as possible. do the security checks. do not renew somebody who is not a priority individual. >> thank you for starting out your statement in reference to the boston situation. i feel comfortable asking this question.
2:08 pm
reportedilots have that two individuals responsible for the bombings were immigrants from chechnya. before they became the focus o the investigation, authorities questioned a saudi student who was on a terrorist watch list. i trust you'll probably respond given the impact this could have on the immigration debate. was hewatch list >> he was not. this student was in the wrong place at the wrong time. a was never a subject or
2:09 pm
person of interest. was bnterewed i w put on a watch list and then when it was determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the status was removed. olderh regard to the brother, was your department aware of his travels to russia? >> in 2012? not, the reason. yes. the system pinged when he was a leading the united states. the time he returned matter had been closed. >> is it true that his identity documents did not match his airline ticket? >> there was a mismatch. the bill will help with this.
2:10 pm
it requires that passports be electronically readable as opposed to being manually input. it gets human error out of the process. there are redundancies. the system did ping when he was leaving the united states. i said yesterday it decade after 9/11 a terrorism case has come to light that me and an individual who overstayed his student visa. >> welcome. i veive questions of will try to go very fast. the first one is on e-verify.
2:11 pm
it is our understanding that you are planning to develop a pilot e-verify program for agricultural. i asked chuck who is representing the industry if they have heard of this. they had not. when will this begin? who is responsible for that implementation? thet is under implementation of cis, multiple sizes that can be moved of rounds of other areas that may not have offices. de toave some application. the bill does not have the e- trigger until year four. we will have multiple ways employers can verify legal residents.
2:12 pm
>> can you have your people talk with mr. connor? >> yes. >> flight schools. but a report last year by many flight schools to obtain students in exchange visitor programs certification from immigrions a forced them without being certified by the faa. 167 out of 434th flight training schools, 38% today do not have the required faa certification. i am told ice is often unaware when they revoke certification for flight training providers. they are working with the faa to address this issue. what assurances can you provide
2:13 pm
about efforts to improve its communications with the faa? >> we are very far along. newe also moving from a system governing institutions that educates student visa holders. this will help solve the problem. i will get to that. the silent screen process. under the present system, applicants for asylum must undergo a cred interviewed to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution in his or her county of origin. but the officer determines that they have a credible fear, the application is a long for further consideration. this bill streamlines the process partly by allowing a screening officer to grants
2:14 pm
asylum immediately following the interview. if this were to become law, how would the department in sure they're adequately screen for national security threats? current regulations permit to confer with the state department to verify the veracity of an applicant's claim. to what extent do they use the authority? are other barriers that prevent this between the agencies? thee have greatly improved information available from the get go in terms of what data bases are a check box. that source from the beginning
2:15 pm
when we collect this. with respectth sta department, we have very could relations with the state department in the area which is credible fear. thatu will check whether is an accurate statement. >> yes. we do not take it as being valued. >> the concern is that this bill truncates the process. i would just ask you to look at that. let me turn to the student visa fraud. beenis something i have stedn since 9/11 there was a lot of it in the country. i just looked at schools going
2:16 pm
back to 2008, most of in 2011. eight of the 14 schools are in my state where there are very you have 1ho approved by dhs to accept non- students. last year we sent a letter to immigration and customs enforcement to express our concerns about a student visa fraud and a lack of information sharing. the response letter notedhat i.c.e.'s ability to monitor international students the second is expected to improve the ability to avoid fraud of whh there is still plenty.
2:17 pm
fullyon track to be operational by 2013 when this bill goes into effin? >> that is my understanding. >> we will count on it. >> it goes to the fact that this bill builds on the security matters we are have in hand. we are well under way. my anticipation is that it will implemented by the end of the year. >> good morning. agree start something i withou on. the border fencing, texas is different from arizona and california and other places. they have recommended some
2:18 pm
tactical use of fencing. ado not lead the building fence across the 2,000 miles southern border is the answer. it is a combination. i like to see flexibility with cutting up with the best strategy to achieve the goal. >> let the record show we agree. >> that is a good start. here is the harder part. in the bill, there are different measures for effective control of the border. it calls f a 90% effectiveness rates. it to you know how many people actually crossed the border and unbeknownst to the department
2:19 pm
and get away? weo not know the denominat wethe merator. >> that is one of the problem as using effectiveness rate as your only measure. placecontinue to put in of the technology according to the plant has minute to congress, we will live creature continents that we will have situational awareness. i will share with you bet that is an inherent problem, knowing the actual denominator. >> i thought it bizarre that we measure our success by the people we ketch but not focusing on the people who got away. it is an inherent problem. used is a number that is
2:20 pm
as one of the many that taken together a gives you an overall picture. >> the department would have to gain effective control over risk sectors along the border. right now that the tucson, the rio grande sector and the laredo sector. two in texas and one in arizona. the problem is if they know where they're going to concentrate their efforts, reth trect their efforts into areas that are not as secure.
2:21 pm
>> this is the way it will work. all sectors will have protectors when in them. resourceso fit your where the traffic is greatest. if it shifts, the resources will shift. we are much able better to predict where we think that will move. >> the bill provides for an my concern is that human traffickers are far more nimble. be in no decision seems to unworkable. >> that is what the drafted bill provides. we regularly review those
2:22 pm
numbers and make decisions. we would not wait for an annual review to make adjustments. othe numberople who get away, there was a story talking about radar technology the story suggested that as many as half of the people across the border get away undetected by the department of common security. you have any reason to disagree or deferred? >> yes. that story was misleading. they did not understand the technology. it has not even been used yet. we're taking something used in the battlefield and in transferring to the border. it did not take into account the fact, but there were
2:23 pm
apprehensions' been made around. i can give you more of a detailed briefing in arivate setting which i ink is moreappropriate. th a inaccurate andomete. >> i would welcome that. >> since 1996, the law of the land has mandated death the implementation of an automated entry/exit system. ite are 16 years later and still has not been done. what gives you any confidence that it will be done? >> we have enhanced ourbity to link them in different ways. we have already submitted our
2:24 pm
plan for moving toward electronic verification. this is the plan we are already in terms of a biometric exit, and we piloted that in detroit and a plant said. one of the issues is our airports are not designed to have those kind of exit lights. and just a plain architecture problem. we believe we can achieve that with an electronic record verification. this would be for both air nc. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. last year and a bipartisan
2:25 pm
of senators introduced an waiverch modernizes the program, the wait times. dramatice been some changes made alrea. i wanted to know if you support this bill and if you think this is a good idea. we're financing improvements. >> the administration is supportive of the waiver program.
2:26 pm
videoconferences and we're in different areas. it is a tactical decision. phoenix degrees in today. >> we have the mall of america. many officials have had their resources stretched. can you speak to the potential benefits? >> the bill does an excellent job of putting more resources specifyinger and
2:27 pm
resources to be used in a stone garden type of arrangement. i think there are some special provisions for arizona. it is supportive of state and local law enforcement. >> this is very important including in the immigration area. we have to use their audit team authorities to go in combat the use of all these programs. does this improve the resources the government has to identify? how do you think this helps? >> the bill increases the body of knowledge that we have available to us. it requires more by way of employees.
2:28 pm
it requires a secure identification to be issued. we should also be able to take the database and dump it into our matching data base. that will be very helpful. >> that is something we have all been talking about. >> on the improvement is to bring people out of the shadows. we know who they are. we know where they are. once these people know that every time they interact they will be subject to removal, it will help with the reporting of
2:29 pm
crime. >> that to ask you about. we worked hard to get this in the violence against women act. we had been there. we were trying to expand this. we know how perpetrator's expand this of perpetrators used the law against victims. helpsplain how they work to protect the victims of their not afraid to come forward? >> this expense in number of visas that are available. from a protections standpoint and our ability to prosecute those who are abusers is very helpful. >> thank you.
2:30 pm
>> on thursday we are going to meet at 9:30 a.m. and said that sen because of a security briefing at 10:30 a.m.. we will need the quorum. >> thank you for joining us today. some of the questions i have had relayed to the amount of discretion that you and your successors will be given over time should this become law. i do not mean to suggest that
2:31 pm
discretion is categorically bad. sometimes it is necessary. i want to look at where this would be invested in your office and ask about how it might work. in establishing the borders strategy, you will have a certain amount of discretion as to how much additional fencing might be deployed on the southern border region. you have discretion to certify when this is substantially complete. president obama states it in a speech in the past though that he believed the border fence was basically complete. if you determine little or no additional fencing is necessary, what do think we this
2:32 pm
initial certify that it has been completed? >> if that is passed as it is currently written, i think we will move very quickly. we have sector by sector technology plans. we have not been sitting back waiting for a bill to pass. we would look very quickly. >> do you believe the discretion that is printed could permit you to make a finding complete without additional fencing? >> right now the border patrol
2:33 pm
has done an extensive study of where fencing make sense across the southwest border. there were 653 miles. we would go back and look at the kind of fencing is. he can do this for humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity. youhat situations which think about granting the waiver? myi'm going to caveat on
2:34 pm
answers. i could see that there would be considerations based on the aid of a conviction, whether the individual was the primary wage
2:35 pm
earner for the family, the record sent a prior conviction, that kind of inclusive a valuation. >> the alien was authorized to work in the u.s., with those have been collected? they were not big of a rise, it was a significant restriction.
2:36 pm
>> the intent of the bill is to make sure any people moving to rpi is paying all taxes. if the language has to be clarified, that is what the committee process is for. >> thank you very much. i see my time is expired. thank you very much. >> thank you. a wanted to thank you very much. this is a broad reaching portion. i'm grateful for you doing your very best, particulate at this time when we open this hearing
2:37 pm
for reflections on the tragedies in boston and west texas. i am from the mid-atlantic, what assurance can negus of islam to great the ability to perform custom issues? >> this is to make sure that additional activities are defined. this'll help the economy grow
2:38 pm
and every state. >> there has been some discussion about discretion. under current practice they use the authority very sparingly. it said is have shown roughly 1% of all cases. how much more should we expect the department to exercise discretion? >> we do not think that is pursuant to policy. >> they spent time the
2:39 pm
information from own cases. tho significant time because there's a discovery process. >> provided we have the resources to pull the files, i would have no objection. one of the real logistical issues is contained in paper files. given the resources, anything we can do to share mind this would be something to be considered. >> the department may have seen
2:40 pm
some benefits in terms of the overall efficiency. >> what privacy protections to be put in place to employers to not miss use the system? how with this legislation and improve on it? do you think it to be appropriate to give the states additional funds with the assumption they will meet this obligation? >> it allows them to put their driver's license and database into the e-verify database.
2:41 pm
>> thank you very much. thank you for your interest. >> thank you. it has been a real pleasure working with you on this very important time. let me start with a waiver provisions. it is my understanding there is no waiver for in aggravated felony. those three areas are not wadable. >> that is my understanding. it is good to know that there is some discretion. about what we're trying to accomplish here, how much money have we spent on border security since 2005 or 6? >> billions. >> multiple billions. it had 3500 more officers. it does.
2:42 pm
people are stationed at the border. we have doubled in number since 2005 or six. we're adding 35 under more of a service to help secure the border. we're also trying to achieve a 24 hour/seven day we presence. >> i would include different kinds of radar systems that better.
2:43 pm
>> to appoint to spend $3 billion on carrying out the border enforcement strategy. >> we a line to allow the national guard to be deployed. >> that is rights. i really appreciate this assignments. >> i think it triples those under operation streamline. >> that is what we're doing to enhance the border itself. thatgree with me controlling jobs is just as
2:44 pm
important as securing the border? >> at least as important. that is a major driver of illegal migration. dealing with the worker side is so important. >> these are not being overrun by1 million. they come to visit. they go back home. we are being overrun by people with corrupt and poor countries. what only should you secure the border, but the second line of defense is controlling the jobs. 40% of the people here illegally never came across the border. they came to a visa system. one of the triggers is to get an injury and exit running so we know when it expires.
2:45 pm
>> yes. >> the 19 hijackers were all students here on visas. >> that is correct. there are a number of ways that those hijackers would be revealed under the bill. >> now we have a robust guest worker program providing legal labor to workers who cannot find this. >> the combination of systems worked in concert, increasing border security their technology and manpower, controlling at a national level. providing access to labor was trying to achieve border security.
2:46 pm
>> it is an interwoven system. absolutely. >> you said that the older brother, at the suspect was killed, when he left to go back to russia in 2012 the system picked up his departure but did not pick up him coming back. is that correct? >> that is my understanding. >> the text alone was more than one year old. >> after having taught to the fbi, they tell me they had no knowledge of them coming back. the name was misspelled. i like to talk to you more about this case.
2:47 pm
i do not know how in the world we know this at this early stage. as to the person giving information, i would imagine the 19 year old will tell us that his brother was the bad guy. >> this is a very active on going investigation. off threads are being pulled. there will be a classified briefing for the senate. >> thank you. we know you continue to have
2:48 pm
urgent matters which require your attention. i want to thank you for pointing out that there are two main drivers of a legal border crossings. one is labor. the second takes so long for a legal visa to come into our country. this addresses both of the issues that show us decreasing illegal border crossings. >> it allows us to focus our resources on those who are smugglers and narco traffickers. >> it allows our priorities to be where they ought to be in terms of enforcement.
2:49 pm
this will help millions of families with their loved ones. it also dramatically restrict the ability of some familieso reignite research and loved ones. did this is a concern to those who are on the way list from asia. but i like to continue to work with the members of the committees and with all of you to seek improvements on the family provisions to include lgbt families. veterans have been waiting for decades to reunite with their children. i know that compromises need to be made. there are some areas where it went further than it needed to. this eliminates the categories
2:50 pm
and replaces it with a new mayor of based system. we believed it will eliminate many than members reunited with their it united states siblings. ans provides assistance in emotional financial support. it provides care. there are many times when this may be the only remaining member of their nuclear family. i am concerned this will no longer provide a meaningful opportunity for them to participate for their siblings. what opportunities will they have to be able to immigrate to the united states.
2:51 pm
>> the intent of the bill is the exchange for allowing the spouses and children to be excluded in exchange for the recapture provisions of unused visas and balance with the increase in economic related visas. there are other avenues of different work related these is that a sibling would be eligible for regardless. there are different avenues they could receive. toi have a hearing relating comprehend the immigration
2:52 pm
reform. they obtain legal sadness from a legal system. allowld give points that them to score high enough to be able to come in. >> is difficult to answer that hypothetical right now. this is a big improvement. i think this is a major improvement. theill deal with a lot of backlog of. >> there are probably some ways
2:53 pm
which we can allow for these many members to come in so that the issue can be addressed. i look forward to continuing to work with you. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for joining us. thank you for the excellent work that you and your agency have done over the last week in dealing with and apprehending the boston bomber. it has been a time of great trauma. we're all celebrating that he was apprehended so quickly. >> thank you. >> and would like to ask questions both dealing with process in dealing with border security. my office received the text to this bill at 2:25 a.m. on
2:54 pm
wednesday april 17, five days ago. the bill as a hundred 44 pages long. it is dealing with a very complicated topic. when did your office received a copy of this bill. >> after it got any morning. >> since you have been heavily focused on matters such as letters such as this, had you had the time to read the bill? >> i had read the bill. i know many sections of the bill fairly well so i was able to scan it. >> it is been a busy weekend. >> a very busy. >> restaurants of border
2:55 pm
security are sometimes interesting. seems they pushed to a decrease as evidence that border security is working well. i'm always a little skeptical of these statistics that proves end up being put forth. let me ask an initial question. have apprehensions increased or decreased? from last year to this year. >> overall, they have stayed the same with respect to the
2:56 pm
southern rio grande valley where we had had an increase primarily in central mexico. i he did he it this. >> i am a little puzzled. tolder this month he reporters in houston. sentencing this is done the signs of success. >> both are accurate. apprehensive is up 40 years ago.
2:57 pm
the key is to sustain that. >> you just said a minute ago they were higher this year than last year. >> one is referring to border wide. one is referring to the rio grande sector. when the traffic is higher now. actions are being taken. >> your testimony is borderline apprehensions are down. iswhat i just said is it about level with last year expect with respect to south texas. >> had did gain a measure
2:58 pm
border security? it relies upon them having a sound metric for who is attempting to cross this country illegally into is being prevented or apprehended. have to the action figure out what is happening and measures success? why is it the department no longer uses the much of operational control? >> we look at a number of things. we look at apprehensions. we look at crime rates. we look at seizures both inbound and outbound. we look at reports from those on the ground at the border. it is a whole host of things. one of the things we are really looking for is what is the
2:59 pm
trend. this is all in a positive direction that we can also make decisions about where we can put more resources. reno's sell texas is problematic for us carry it that we will see these very quickly. >> i just want to thank you for the house standing job your doing. this bill is going to be available for everyone to read for three weeks.
3:00 pm
had senator grassley. he introduced an 80-page gun bill on the day we voted on it, it was a complicated bill. i did not hear anyone cry about it. but the point i want to make is that there will be time for torche read the bill and prepare amendments for it. there is in view, this is like health care and it's not. the health care bill we started debating before it was introduced and that is not happening here. we want to say this, i think we speak for the eight of us that put this together, we want a
3:01 pm
robust committee process. last time, we did not have a committee process and the bill collapsed on the floor. perhaps if the amendments that were offered on the floor were offered in committees, compromises could have emerged, discussions could have emerges. so to have an open, robust discussion is in our interest. no one is trying to rush this bill through. i want to make that clear. i now would like to talk about the border. so back in 2010 you may remember that senator mccain and myself sent you the border bill about $600 million is that right? >> yes. >> at the time the southern border had an effectiveness rate of 68%. every 100 people that our authorities saw they were able to capture, turn back 68. passethe border bill wasd
3:02 pm
it went up to 82%, is that correct? >> it sounds about right. so the -- >> so the immigration that we're 75k about today passes about given the $600 that we appropriated made such progress can you tell what kind of security impact it will have? doesn't seem very logical we're going to get a higher rate than we have now? >> i think that is true. in my view, the key is technology and air cover. our ability to implement the
3:03 pm
best technology at the border as we're doing so now. to speed that up can improve where we are now. >> i went to the border. it is clear that it is a vast border. i am from the tiny state of new york. you cannot do it is by letting -- lining up people. if you use drones and air, you can figure out where the people are going and at preend them 50 miles inland. the drones have the ability to follow that. we need more drones. we need more air. the people on the border made that clear to us and it should ncrease the effectiveness rate dramatically. >> i do not disagree in the technology. the actinometer has always been
3:04 pm
one of the major problems in calculating. >> again, how we tighten up security. it is clear that tamerlan tsarnaev had no record of him going to russia are coming back because his name was isspelled. it was a foreign airline. under our bill, everything will have to be a passport or achine-read. is it a safe guess that under our law the authorities would know that tamerlan was going to ussia? >> there was a ping on the l -- outbound to customs.
3:05 pm
anything that makes a requirement for machine readable gets manual in putting out of the system and improves security. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it was a revelation on the border. we saw an apprehension. a quick one too. >> they knew exactly where the person climbing the fence would go. it was amazing. >> i think the woman heard senator schumer's accent and thought she was in new york. [laughter] it was a good trip. it is always good to see the border. you talked about apprehension rate. there has been concerned about metrics.
3:06 pm
is it true what we're calling for in the legislation is pretty uch what you do now? senator schumer quoted some statistics from several years ago. now you have more resources to do it. the net effect. we know how many people cross. we can get a better figure there. >> no one number captures the nature of the border. that is why i say there is no one metric that is a number 42 r some sort.
3:07 pm
these give you a picture of the border. ey are informed by what we are eeing. >> given where we are already, you'll be able to achieve the 0% effectiveness rate? >> the border provides for a commission and additional resources. it is not just at the border. it is improving the overall ystem. >> the so-called second border. do you see any issues with having e-verify mandatory and the time frame called for? >> it is achievable assuming the resources are available.
3:08 pm
we will implement the bill with the timeline you have given s. >> the provisions called for in the bill -- do you see those as helping in that regard? >> absolutely. we are already doing things like photo match. very, very helpful. also incentivizing states to put their drivers' licenses into the database. >> the current concern is that e-verify can tell if a social security number is valid. how does this legislation deal with that?
3:09 pm
>> it allows us to implement a system that creates a lot on a lot-- that creates a lock on the social security number. so if the same number is being used in several places, that gets flagged. >> "i have my job so i will lock my number so cannot be used elsewhere." if a number does pop up in montana or new york or somewhere else then that is flagged now .here it current is not >> that is my understanding of the bill, yes. >> thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. senator sessions. >> this bill gives the secretary extraordinary discretion if it were to become law about how the aw would be carried out. that causes me a great deal of concern.
3:10 pm
october in 2011, i share with you my concerns. the department has been more focused on meeting with special immigration groups then supporting them and helping them accomplish with the law requires in this country. have you met with those officers and you said no. have you met with the officers f the ice association? >> have a spoken to border patrol officers in the field, yes. >> i think you should have met with them in the field. there is a very real problem there. a few months ago there was a survey that showed moral of .c.e. employees dropped.
3:11 pm
were you aware that the morale at ice had dropped? >> that is a real concern of ine. >> are you aware in lawsuit has een filed? a vote of no-confidence in the ice director was held. nothing has been done to deal with the failed leadership at that agency. >> ice has increased its enforcement efforts and has installed real priorities for he first time. the director gets criticized for departing too many people as opposed to not enough people. that is a difficult job to ave.
3:12 pm
ice has removed more people and we now have secure communities installed. >> i could not disagree more. that's not what the officers are aying. let me ask you this. she was interrupting my comments. > i apologize. >> i do not believe that is accurate. he testified that agents are prohibited from enforcing the law. the ice officers have filed a lawsuit. i have never heard of a situation in which a group of all bank officers sued -- a roup of law officers sued.
3:13 pm
they were not complaining about pay, benefits, working conditions. they were saying the oath they took to enforce the law is being blocked and that this is undermining their ability to do what they are sworn to do. >> may i respond? >> yes. >> there are tensions with union leadership, unfortunately. this is what i expect. law enforcement agents will enforce the law in accordance with the guidance they are given rom their superiors. that is fully asked throughout the department. that would be consistent with all law enforcement. those are set their
3:14 pm
superiors. they are asked to obey that guidance and accord with t law. >> well, mr. crane testified that said agents shall do this that or the other. they were not allowed to do with the law plan it allows. you are not entitled to set olicies -- >> if i might, i disagree with almost everything you have said. we'll have to representfully disagree with each other. i think it does point to why this bill needs to be passed. hat we want our officers doing is focusing on narco traffickers and money launderers and others
3:15 pm
who misuse our border and immigration system by having a rocess by which those in the country legally can pay a fine, register so we know who they are. by opening up the visa system. that will have the effect, basically, of confirming the focus of resource where is they need to be. >> i appreciate that but i'm worried about the vigor of this epartment. i would note removals' by ice re down. there was a memorandum that basically undermined prosecutorial -- that is why morale is down. >> i think the secretary has answered the question. filing the lawsuit does not mean
3:16 pm
the person filing the lawsuit wins the lawsuit. let's see how the lawsuit comes out. senator franken. > thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your department's response to the boston bombings. our thoughts and prayers are with you. you did an outstanding job in quickly tracking down and capturing the perpetrators. thank you for your work. i will focus on some things that i'm worried about in the ill. this overall package is a giant step forward. sorry.
3:17 pm
i believe this is going and long way to fixing a broken immigration system. it will help minnesota of businesses and families. my first question is about the e-verify mandate in the ill. i worry that errors will hurt mall businesses. big companies have the resources to deal with this. but i'm worried about the small family business were the human resource department may also be the accountant and sales force and your spouse. you don't have the time to deal with a system that is not working 100% properly. ne if five businesses in
3:18 pm
minnesota employs 20 people or less. the department says one legal authorized worker is wrongly rejected, at least temporarily. that rate is lower than the last independent audit. will the department be able to aintain this error rate? >> that is our intention and to rive that error rate down. the ability of individuals to self check so they can go online and see if the entry is dequate.
3:19 pm
we have set up a system where things can be corrected if an rror occurs. you have seen that error rate diminished substantially. we'll continue to work in that regard. >> you believe you'll be there with that error rate or better? > yes. >> one out of every 140 kicked out. somebody who was a legal worker. that sounds low but you wouldn't want that working on your credit card or your car starting or something. it took legal workers an average of 7-13 days to get those errors fixed.
3:20 pm
a member what 34 years of service was flagged as an illegal worker and it took him two months to resolve that issue. is it critical that e-verify have these low error rates if it will be mandatory for every business in the country? >> yes. it will be important to continue o achieve that, senator. > that was the old 2009 -- i know that dhs has its own figures showing the lower error rates. i think independent audits are what we need here.
3:21 pm
we are discussing this bill now. would you pledge to release that ata in that study? the report -- >> we will make that available. >> i want to thank you for your staff about my bill. this is a priority for me. i hope i can count on you and your continuing help with that. thank you so much. mr. chairman? >> i understood senator durbin was here and wished to ask some questions. f not --
3:22 pm
if you'll hold just a moment. i think he may have had to step up. senator lee. please keep it to five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to correct something i said earlier. it talks about the tax liability issue. i should have referred to pages 68 and 69 of the bill. the standard is ambiguous as to when it would trigger the back tax liability. i have given a citation error. he standard would give you
3:23 pm
discretion to identify what documentation that would have to prove to show they had fulfilled their obligation to pay any back taxes. i wanted to talk about another provision. this one is on page 63 of the bill. it deals with who is eligible or rpi status. it waives eligibility for those who have received orders of eportation but have absconded, meaning they fled after having been ordered deported, or they had returned to the united states following an order of deportation after which they return to their home country or another country. am concerned about this
3:24 pm
provision, that this might reward conduct that seems to be pretty clear violation of a court order. do you agree with this policy? >> right. i have read the bill but i have ot memorize the pages. i believe that is a provision in the sense that if somebody has been removed from the country nd it would otherwise have qualified for rpi, they would be allowed back in the country, or i can allow them back in the country. that is one of the balances truck in the bill.
3:25 pm
family unify case versus enforcement. >> ok. so's your recollection of that provision is discretionary. >> my understanding is the intent would give us the ability to waive some and that was pre mislead removed -- that was previously removed. >> ok. from the date of the enactment, the bill prevents anyone from being detained or deported or apprehended as long as they appear eligible for rpi tatus. its last as much as three or three and a half years if the xtension is granted.
3:26 pm
we've heard from some ice ages that their work has been hampered at times. people will claim eligibility simply by saying, i qualify nder doca. the concern has been expressed that this could amount to a de acto enforcement holiday where nobody may be detained or apprehended so long as they utter the magic words. do you share that concern? >> it is not my intent to take those extensions, assuming i'm here. we have every interest in implementing this as quickly as ossible.
3:27 pm
if somebody has a felony conviction or if they are a national security risk, they fall within our priorities. they would not qualify for rpi. i think we would handle that effectively as we enforce this new regime. >> thank you, madame secretary. senator durbin. >> thank you. your title says it all -- homeland security. in light of what happened in boston everyone is more sensitive to this issue, ertainly understandable. i have said and i want to confirm -- do you believe the
3:28 pm
passage of this bill will make america safer and more secure? >>yes. absolutely. >> up to 11 million undocumented people will step forward as to who they are and where they live and where they work, be subject to a criminal background checks. with that knowledge, we will be a safer nation. >> we will have more identifications, more metrics. so it increases security on that end. right now, that group that is in limbo, they are reluctant to come forward when they have been a witness or a victim to a crime.
3:29 pm
allowing them to get that pathway will alleviate that problem. >> it is clear we have made historic investments in the security of our border between the united states and mexico. i like to address a couple other areas. one relates to those seeking asylum. there is nothing in this bill that weakens the responsibility f your department to establish ough law enforcement and intelligent checks whether those seeking asylum would pose any threat to the united states. > that is right.
3:30 pm
as you go through the application process, there are a number of times where individuals are rechecked and e-interviewed. so that information is also gathered to help ascertain the credibility for persecution. >> i know you're aware of my interest in the dream act. i want to plug you and the president again for doca. here was criticism about whether or not those who've gone through the doca check should be closer to provisional status than those who have not. >> i thought that was a good art of the draft bill. we have already checked them a variety of ways.
3:31 pm
the doca process uses a good pilot on how we would do the much larger rpi process. >> i know that e-verify has been discussed. i want to go to the other. that relates to visa holders who come to the united states. they are told you can stay for a certain purpose or a certain period of time. our system has been unable to track their departure. o we close the loop. part of the immigration reform moves us to a new stage where it to increase safety we will develop the technology to stablished that.
3:32 pm
can you tell me your level of confidence that we can reach that in the near future? >> the electronic exit system is very consistent with the plan we have already submitted to the ongress. it is an achievable goal as stated in the bill as drafted. >> i have stated publicly and i hope that you agree -- the worst thing we can do is nothing. to step back and just accept the broken immigration system. resign ourselves to that as our future -- i thing that is the worst outcome. >> i could not agree with you more.
3:33 pm
i think the draft bipartisan bill embraced the principles the president enunciated. it deals with security and economic growth and itality. it is a bill i am hopeful will move forward. > thank you very much. > senator blumenthal and senator whitehouse have asked or a second round. i know you have another atter. >> thank you for your helpful testimony.
3:34 pm
like to ask a question that perhaps you may have entered in a different way. if you had three points where ou think this bill should be changed to be improved, it is a bipartisan bill. i am a supporter and i believe strongly that the worst thing to do now would be to do nothing. every measure can use some constructive scrutiny. i wonder if you have any suggestions on how this bill might be improved. >> rather than create a separate ence fund is to have one
3:35 pm
security fund so the operators and the secretary have more flexibility with those monies. would recommend that. e'll work with committee staff on this, to make sure the language about funding flows and which accounts is accurate and clear. we want to make sure it is consistent with the appropriations. we will work with your staffs on that part. > in terms of the tension or the judicial process by which these cases are prosecuted, so to speak, can you suggest changes that would make it fairer?
3:36 pm
>> one change in the bill reflects a policy change we're installing right now. counsel for those who are deemed entally incompetent. >> in terms of the impasse of the most recent incident in boston, i know you have addressed those in the course of our testimony. i wonder if there's anything we can do to raise these issues so they did not become embroiled in the short-term, misperceptions that might result. >> there is a line of misinformation out there as to the two brothers.
3:37 pm
this is an ongoing criminal investigation. there is going to be a lassified briefing on thursday or the senate. let's have that briefing and see if any questions arise that have any relevance to immigration. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i will call on myself. welcome. it is good to have you here. many express my appreciation for the stellar way about how you responded in boston. i know you have a soft space in your heart for law enforcement folks.
3:38 pm
the way people pull together and the impressive deployment of a wide range of local, state, and federal capabilities very comprehensively and very moothly. i know you were an important participant in that. et me say well done. we have heard complaints about the lack of border enforcement, the problems of continued illegal immigration parly across the southern border and so forth. i think that is a refrain that departs a little bit from the act. you can recap some of the
3:39 pm
accomplishments of the obama administration in border security. if you could give us the highlights reel and some of the statistics and metrics that you look at. i would like to have that be art of the record. >> i have worked at border for a long time. this has to be sustained. this is an important part of this bill. we have record manpower now etween the ports of entry. we have technology. we have airwe've completed all but 1 mile coverage. of fence. he last mile is in litigation. the end result -- we have a
3:40 pm
problem in south texas which we re fixing. our seizures for drugs and contraband are up. with the great help of the supplemental appropriation several years ago, we have been able to do quite a bit the outhwest border. >> the deployment of resources have increased? >> to record levels. >> amount of legal immigration as a result has been reduced. > that is correct. law enforcement is one reason.
3:41 pm
another major reason is the driver to get a job. that is why this bill helps us at the border. another driver is how long it takes to get a visa. this bill deals with that problem. so it is a system that needs to work>> good. together. thank you very much for holding this hearing. i do think it is important the record reflect this administration has brought up this country's game in terms of order enforcement. >> thank you. >> i have to ask the senator from rhode island. did you serve at the same time together as a u.s. attorney's or attorneys general? >> i think we went to the same law school.
3:42 pm
> we did that as well. >> as the outsider -- senator grassley. >> i want to make a statement. it involves the discussion you had with senator graham. you said that tamerlan's name did not ping on the atabase. that is something i want to get to the bottom of. let me get to the first uestion. the border security bill applies to high risk sectors. you define high risk based on the apprehensions in a particular sector.
3:43 pm
we know that your department has no operational control of more than half of the border, means apprehensions will remain low in those sectors. do you think it is acceptable for the border to be secure in certain areas? >> operational control is a phrase that should be associated with the ability to deploy resources to your high-risk areas. there are parts of the border we do not need all the resources. we want the ability to of technology and air cover and to be able to focus and move those around to the areas where the risk is the highest. that is not operational control but it is looking at a whole
3:44 pm
range of statistics and measures. >> is in that high risk for the bill to ignore large sections of he border? >> if you look -- we divide the border into nine sectors. there are some sectors that have a lot of miles but are sparsely populated and rarely crossed. they're not near any roads. they're just difficult. we do not leave them bare. we have resources there. we want to surge resources in the trafficking routes. >> no mention of the northern border. only the southern border is included in the trigger. in light of what happened
3:45 pm
yesterday in canada, can the orthern border be ignored? does it need to be part of the discussion? >> i think it is part of the discussion. it is a different type of order. to the point on the misspelling of tamerlan's name and what that meant. i think it would be better if we could discuss those in a classified setting. i believe the draft bill accounts for security on the northern border. > thank you. legalization program --how many people today -- if you know -- are in removal proceedings? >> i would have to get that umber for you.
3:46 pm
>> should these people be allowed to apply and receive egalization? >> if they would meet the requirements for being an rpi, i believe they would be allowed to register as such. >> you agree with that. >> we support the intent, yes. >> how many people today have ignored the order to leave the united states? >> why don't i get you the number for those that we have fugitive warrants. >> should these ups gunners be allowed to benefit from the program -- should these absconders be allowed to benefit rom the program?
3:47 pm
>> given how that is drafted and how it would be a work in practice, in terms of family unification, that is a good part of the bill. >> this will be my last question. i do not know how certain you are about what the fees will bring in. i hope to have a handle on cost o some extend. the agency will be able to be prepared to cover all costs through fees and the administration will not seek taxpayer money to pick up the tab. does that sound reasonable to you?
3:48 pm
>> we to work with the committee about how and where the fines o. we know from doca gives us a good pilot in terms of estimates what the costs are>> thank you. going to be. >> senator cruz has more questions. then we will stop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to revisit the topic we discussed about border security. proponents argue it provides for real metrics for border security and triggers that are eaningful.
3:49 pm
the testimony that was provided this morning is not encouraging n that regard. we talked about operational control. in 2010, the conclusion was that only 873 of the roughly 2000 miles of the southern border were under operational control. that was not an encouraging etric. in light of that statistic, the department simply decided to stop relying upon that statistic. and instead, the department now
3:50 pm
relies on a holistic group of measures which to me seem reminiscent of justice lewis powell -- that measured everything and has a great deal of subjectivity in it. f there are no objective metrics, if it is the subjective assessment of a host of factors, how can we have any confidence that the border will be secured and that any trigger will be meaningful? >> i think you have to step back and look at where the border was even six or seven years ago. there are a whole host of statistics that help in that regard. there are numbers that give you an overall picture of what is happening at the border.
3:51 pm
the overuse of the metric or misuse of it -- it was easily misunderstood. i'm not being critical of it, i'm being descriptive. it refers to your ability to be able to respond in a highly rafficked areas. this bill pretty much says, we're going to continue to build on the security you already have. we hope that we can get flexibility with respect to how that money is spent. and by the way, if we use the effectiveness rate and if that does not reach a certain number in the highly trafficked areas, we will have a commission that
3:52 pm
will recommend what additional steps would need. >> if border security is to be measured by a multi factored test, that this committee knows that dhs conclude border security is satisfied. i would suggest it's not a eaningful trigger. can you describe a circumstance in which the evidence would be such that dhs says border security is not there. he said apprehensions are at the owest level in four years. so what would the facts have to be for d.h.s. to conclude that the triggers are not satisfied? >> i think, senator, we will agree to disagree on the
3:53 pm
predicate for your question. we would continue to look at all he measures. we would be deployed in the echnology plans. those plans are important and sector specific. they will give us even greater visibility as to what is coming across the border even now. so when you look at effectiveness -->> my time is expiring. i will like for you to answer the question i asked. what the evidence would have to show for dhs to show that triggers were not satisfied? >> if conditions return to where they were in 2005 and 2006, the triggers would not be satisfied. >> thank you, madame secretary.
3:54 pm
>> we talk often on issues. i appreciate yours and the president's commitment on immigration. he and i spent a long discussion -- more than one and i thank him for having so many issues of importance before this committee. he was kind enough to say he did not want me to be bored. as i listened to the debate, for some, there will always be a reason why we cannot go forward on immigration reform. the terrible event in boston or any other thing. it is not denying reality to say we cannot go forward.
3:55 pm
now is a good time. we have had eight senators working on this. my wife is a daughter of mmigrants. i think of how this country is improved and made better by mmigrants. the most powerful nation on earth cannot face up to reality and fine day law -- find a law that faces reality, then shame on us. a growing number of senators believe we can. we want to be the conscience of the nation.
3:56 pm
thank you for being here. we stand in recess. national captioning institute] able satellite corp. 2013] >> the 2013 congressional districtry is a handy guide to the current congress with updated listings of each member of the house and senate. it also has information about cabinet members, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. the directry is $12.95 plus shipping and handling, order online at >> senators john mccain and chuck schumer spoke about their immigration bill. the gang of eight said they would be open to address issues
3:57 pm
of national security. the bill has the support of the hite house, and the chamber of commerce. this breakfast is about 45 minutes. >> i will be very brief and make a couple of points. first, on the immigration bill, the number one reason we are here, i want to salute john mccain, who has done an amazing job of leadership that would not have happened without him. he stepped up to the plate early n. one more point not related to immigration, but harry reid has this idea of a joint caucus where john will tell what happened to him during vietnams that has never been talked about before. it is an experience i will never orget. it impressed every member of the senate who was there. it was one of the amazing experiences i have had.
3:58 pm
it as an honor to be with him. on immigration, those few reporters who have an ounce of cynicism running in their bloodstreams -- it is not many of you, all optimistic, positive, and looking forward to the future -- but you would have been impressed by our meetings, our 24 meetings, many of which went into the midnight hour. for eight people of different viewpoints, of different stakes, even needs, if you will, of trying to reach common ground to come together in the middle, and it was an amazing thing to me. it gives you a lot of faith. there are many words to describe. ill but one word is balance.
3:59 pm
it is a fine product, and i am optimistic it will pass. i will not get into the details. one other point -- there is a lot of talk of how did boston affect our bill. some of the facts that have come out in the last day show our bill would have strengthened security, because we require a machine reading of any person who leaves the country where comes back into the country. as you know, tsarnaev, his name was misspelled. he was on a customs watch list, and that is why janet napolitano entioned that. ven though he was on a wider anti-terrorism list, that did not show up because his name was misspelled by aeroflot. on our bill, the name would of been read by passport, and we would have known he was someone was leaving and entering the country, and it might have made a difference.
4:00 pm
our bill strengthens security. the events in boston should importune us to leave status quo and go to a proposal like urs. we are interested in other improvements, but those who say in my judgment let's wait on the bill because we have to see everything that happened in boston and see all that, it is an excuse. the only people saying about were long against boston when it occurred. >> i like to think chuck schumer for the leadership has displayed in getting together different views even within the group and different priorities. by the way, chuck and i worked on an attempt to avert a 51-boat
4:01 pm
in the senate because of the dissatisfaction, some of which is understandable on behalf of harry reid and we have worked on other issues together. i appreciate the opportunity to since theted with him american people are very interested in seeing some results from the congress of the united states. and sure you saw the poll about favorability of different aspects of our life and members of congress ranked just below a colonoscopy. we would like to get above that. i would just like to elaborate for just a second on what chuck said about the tragedy in theon should somehow impede bill. it we will then move to the floor where there will be weeks
4:02 pm
of debate and amendment. we will have ample opportunity if there are lessons to be learned about the boston tragedy to incorporate them in the legislation. final product. on the issue of the final product, if we feel that the bill can be improved, we will support those amendments, but if it is an amendment designed to happened inl, as 2007, we would probably vote together to prevent the bill from going down. these are fragile compromises that have been made. this. stop with we think that america will be much more secure with the passage of this bill. we will have a more secure border. we will use technology that was
4:03 pm
developed that would help identify people as they come across. which willve e-verify send a message that even if you get to the united states of america, you will not have a job when you get here because of the stiff employer sanctions and i would also point out that our-entry will help us with national security as well. havee press conference we the other day, i would like to conclude with this. one of the supporters asked, what makes you optimistic now, whereas it in 2007 you failed? behind us. we are a coalition that has been assembled.
4:04 pm
it,id not assemble necessarily. from labor, business, chamber of commerce, evangelicals, the catholic church. when you look at the broad spectrum of support that has been expressed for passage of this legislation, it is a coalition we did not have in 2007, and i believe those people are extremely active. peoplethe american support a path to citizenship as long as the people are here legally, pay back taxes, pay a fine, learn english, and get in line behind everybody else who came to this country legally, and that is an important factor in american approval or disapproval. that is what this legislation is all about. thanks for having us. >> talking about how this is
4:05 pm
not a final bill, that the bill would have made the boston situation better, have you discovered anything so far that tells you need to make further improvements in the bill? senator graham hasn amendment requiring those who are deemed higher risk to undergo more checks. are you seeing anything as a result of boston, where you wanted add stuff to the bill that is already good? >> it is way too early. we do not have all the lessons. we're finding new information on a daily basis. i am sure that by the time this bill reaches the floor we will reach conclusions and we will include provisions like that, if we feel they are necessary, working with the administration, by the way, and some of the smart people at the fbi and the other agencies. we are completely open to amendments that would in any way prevent what happened in boston. nobody has any illusion about that.
4:06 pm
>> about sequester and flight delays, there is a dispute about how to handle the airline delays because of the sequester. a report said some democrats want legislation that will deal with the air travel portion of the sequester. majority leader harry reid is working they have a sequester repeal. can anything be done about the air travel delays? >> yes. look, my best solution is to undo sequester and replaced it with more rational types of cuts, and that would be leader reid has an amendment which got the support on our side, not on the other side, and having said that, i noted last night jay carney, the president's spokesperson, said he would be open to a solution just for faa. the transportation department
4:07 pm
has probably the worst lead on sequestration, because so many of their employees are not affected because they are funded in part by trust funds. highway words, the trust fund is not subject to sequester. thee have had hearings in senate armed armed services committee and we have heard from everybody except the navy. the kinds of hearings we have,
4:08 pm
every one of our uniformed service chiefs have said it cannot defend the nation if we continue with this sequester. i'm terribly uncomfortable with the delays of faa. i think it is a terrible thing. i have been subject to it myself. we are looking at a virtual threat to our national security. we have got our priorities upside down. i am hell-bent -- if we're going to take care of airlines past years, why don't we take care of our national security? the world is a more dangerous place than i have seen ever, in many respects. every one of our uniformed security chiefs say they are
4:09 pm
going to be able to defend the nation within a year. we have got our priorities upside down. i will go along with whatever the faa thing is. it's criminal and scandalous that we are ignoring the effective sequestration on our national security, how we can believe -- if you don't believe uniformed service chiefs, that is fine. i happen to. they are presenting graphic illustrations of the problems that they are facing. i'm glad to see all the focus on whether we have to wait in
4:10 pm
line longer, or there is flight delays. i wish to god the congress of united states would focus on the threats to our nation's security. and keeping good and qualified young and then women -- men and women who are now considering getting out because they see no future, at least a predicable future, which at least we'll them. >> one other point -- owe them. >> one other point. faa is causing problems. it causes economic loss. we have lots of other cuts. john mentions the military. i hate to see nih be cut, cancer research. i certainly agree that would be a lot better to figure out a better way to undo the whole sequester as opposed to doing it piecemeal. i certainly would be open to an faa solution. the transportation department is under an undue amount of immediate squeeze. >> you talked about
4:11 pm
republicans, how they can appeal to hispanic voters. there is still a lot of fear i am hearing. how do you convince him that that risk is worth taking? >> i believe if we pass this legislation, it won't gain us a single hispanic vote. it will put us on a playing field where we can compete great right now we cannot compete -- compete. right now it cannot compete. all i can try to do is show my friends, particularly in states like mine and the state of texas and others, where the demographics should be convincing -- by six or eight years from now, we will have a -- if not a majority, near to a majority hispanic population in my state. it is a demographic certainty that if we condemn ourselves to 15%, 20%, 25% of the hispanic
4:12 pm
vote we will not win elections. i have no illusions about whether passage of this legislation will gain hispanic voters. it won't. it will put us on a playing field where we can make an argument, as i do with check everyday for smaller government -- chuck every day for smaller government, pro-life, pro- defense. that is the argument i think we can make to gain hispanic support. >> i will make one other comment. i was sitting with marco rubio with two conservative leaders. one of them said, schumer, you are doing this so you can get more democratic votes. beaid, the first one will allowed to vote in 13 and a half years. if you republicans have not solved your problems with the hispanic community in 13 and a half years, you are finished. >> i called paul ryan yesterday
4:13 pm
to thank him for his outspoken support of immigration reform. >> tom? >> senator mccain, can you tell us what paul ryan told you? >> i said i think my comments are important. he agrees with what i just said. thanks for calling, and -- once you run for president -- no, he did not say that. [laughter] >> the other day that lindsey graham said the goal is to get 70% of votes in the senate -- >> we need that, and i think it's doable. >> senator schumer? >> if we were to pass this bill with over 50 democratic votes normally eight or nine republican votes -- it would pass. we would get the 60. it would bode poorly for the house.
4:14 pm
but we are looking for -- what we are looking for is getting a large republican vote. we did some very interesting things. senators hatch and rubio, feinstein and bennett were part of the section. it was a point where most agreed with our proposal. southeast did not. we knew there were a lot of republican senators from the southeast who might vote for growers, but if their portray -- were very much against the bill -- their agriculture is a bit different. we worked out an accommodation. we are looking not to get 61 votes. it would be wonderful if we could get a majority on both sides. >> follow-up on that.
4:15 pm
>> i think it's very doable. yes, sir. >> just as you discussed, getting 70 votes is important for what happens in the house, how many conversations -- could you describe if you have spoken to your colleagues in the house about if they're working on their bill. and for senator schumer, you discussed trying to curry up republican support. can you'd speak about the diversity and what happened to that? talk about what happens in the diversity in the negotiation process. >> we've had conversations with some of our colleagues in the house. i think the time to do that is probably after we finish on the floor of the senate with a completed package, so we can go over specific voice with them. we've had several -- points with them. we've had several conversations. we've encouraged their negotiations, which in many
4:16 pm
are particularly given the makeup of that group, somewhat encouraging. >> on diversity visas, i was the author of it back in the 1990's. i care about it. we had strong opposition from both republican colleagues on our gang of eight as well as house republicans. diversity visas were designed to bring in immigrants from countries that could not get them through family connections. 86% of the legal immigrants who come into the country, 84% or
4:17 pm
86% are family related. only 16% or so were job-related. diversity was an effort to bring in people from europe and africa, who were the majority of the ancestry of americans, but who could not get in because whoas their fifth cousins could come. it was successful for a while. now it has shifted. the majority of people who come in are from central -- certainly the plurality, the highest number is from central asia, no longer from europe or africa. given that and the opposition of our colleagues, we decided we could not continue diversity visas. the cbc cares a lot about this,
4:18 pm
the congressional black caucus. in the system we have is a point system edge lindsey graham pushed for -- which lindsey graham pushed for. it makes future legal immigration more job oriented. that is the consensus among most of us. there is plenty of room for family there, too. the number of africans, because they have so decreased under the diversity visa, will increase. that's not to mention the number of caribbean-americans who will first become rpi's and then citizens under the bill. >> you said they will increase. why will they increase? >> in the point system, questions that are underrepresented get points -- countries that are underrepresented get points. >> [indiscernible] what reassurance can you give to parents and students and mid-level professionals that this wave of immigrants will not drive down wage? we are talking about across the full width of university education, including environmentalists and
4:19 pm
journalists. >> we need a whole new group to come in and straighten things out. >> we're talking primarily stem. >> primarily stem. that is over half the postgraduates. those people ought to be given an opportunity to remain in the u.s. there are job requirements for those people. there is no doubt that they are not being filled. if the united states is going to remain the number one nation in the world, we had better be able to keep the best talent in the world. those people are people who are attending the best universities in the world, which happened to be ours. >> a couple of things in there. unemployment level for college graduates across the board in
4:20 pm
america is about 4.5%. it is obviously not like high school graduates. it is certainly in double digits there. because of senator durbin's work, they have to be paid a significant wage, level two wage. that is going to be a deterrent to anybody who wants to bring in somebody, non-stem, college graduate, for these other professions. they have to post the job. if a qualified american is available, they have to hire him or her. we have a lot of safeguards for the non-stem people who are college graduates. >> in the house, you say that the path to citizenship, there is a nonstarter there. i'm wondering if you think there's going to be a big problem there and if you see
4:21 pm
any other path way to getting this bill done. >> there's no way of getting this job done without giving people a path to citizenship. a lot of our friends in his panic community, when they look at what's her -- hispanic community, when they look at what's required, they're not very happy. and we're talking about a $500 fee, and another one after five years, and all of the hoops that are required here, border security, there's going to be pushed back from that side as well. a legal status is not something that someone should have to remain in unless they want to. to say that you can have a legal status but you cannot have it has to be a citizen, i just
4:22 pm
don't think it fits the fundamental principles of fairness in our society. i know that opposition is there. i don't think it's valid. i don't think it is held even by majority of republicans. >> it's a nonstarter. in the european countries where they have done this and people don't feel they have a chance to become part of society, there is huge discontent. we have seen that in the results of economic unrest, in terms of terrorism and things like that. the american dream is that you can become an american. you have to follow certain rules. you have to pay taxes. we even say for the first time, you have to learn english. achieveld be able to that american dream, symbolized by the beautiful lady in the harbor of the city where i live. it is fundamentally important. most americans support it. the majority of republicans
4:23 pm
supported. >> as long as -- >> there is a path. you earn it. >> right. >> for the hispanic community, it is a nonstarter. for most democrats, it is a nonstarter. the one thing that the four of us insisted on, there has to be a path to citizenship. john and the other three said it has to be a qualified, earned path to citizenship. they insisted that people go to the back of the line, not gain any benefit from crossing the border. we have achieved that. >> effective control of the border. >> any attempt to say in the
4:24 pm
house that you will not have a path to citizenship will be a nonstarter. it will not pass the senate. i don't think it would get a democratic vote. >> michael? >> what happens to immigrants who are on the path to citizenship if benchmarks are not met? >> they would remain in a legal status until they comply with all of the requirements -- illegal until they comply with all of the requirements. simpson i voted for mazzoli. 3 million people illegally in this country. we give them amnesty and then we will never have this again. now we have 11 million people
4:25 pm
who are here illegally. i'm not going to stand for a third wave. that means that we not only have to have a secure border, but 40% of the people are here illegally overstayed their visas. we have to track that down. the most important aspect is that if an employer knowingly hires a person who is here illegally, they will be penalized for doing so. we will have their ability to authenticate it through tamperproof documents. the one thing that bothers me is the demand for drugs. drugs will continue to come across our southern border as long as there is a demand for it. that is a problem that we have not even addressed. it is separate from illegal immigration. we cannot have a third wave. we owe it to the american people.
4:26 pm
the only way you do that is a combination of e-verify, exit entry, secure border, and penalties for employers who hire people that don't have the proper documentation. >> let's make a couple of points. i agree with john. the american people will support common sense, balanced solutions to legal immigration and the 11 million who are here only if they are convinced there will not be a third wave of illegal immigration. our bill is stronger than anything that has been envisioned. the border metrics are real. john took us to the border. we passed the bill, the two of us in 2010. it puts $600 million into the border. some of my constituents said, theon't need anything on border. that $600 million raised
4:27 pm
effectiveness rates from 68% to 82%. everyone who attempts to cross they either catch or turn back, 82%. now we are spending another 4.5, and then another two if that does not work. one thing we insisted on, that these metrics not be spaghetti. they be achievable, concrete metrics. listen to this. on their border in arizona they only have two drones. they can only fly them eight hours a day because they don't have the personnel. it's a vast border. it's nothing like new york. [laughter] you don't have to catch them right at the border. you have these drones like and follow people across the border.
4:28 pm
they see everything that crosses. they can follow them for 25, 30 miles inland and catch them there. the one who got in the news, the one lady we saw trying to cross the border, they did not apprehend her. she was climbing over a fence. they said, we will catch her in 20 minutes. and they did. these metrics are really going to be more effective than people think. we are going to secure the
4:29 pm
border. and they are achievable. let's say a president comes in who is anti-immigration. they cannot use the system. they cannot game the system to say we are not creating a path to citizenship. >> technology. in about a month they will be 120 degrees on the arizona- sonora border. it is very tough on people, sitting in a vehicle in that heat. we developed radars and capabilities in iraq that will allow us -- if deployed correctly, will allow us to surveilled the entire border. we can intercept people within some miles. we developed a radar in iraq which not only identifies people at the time, but they back to where they came from. it's a fascinating radar. i'm convinced the technology
4:30 pm
and surveillance capabilities as well as the drones will allow us to have effective control of the border, which might have been impossible 10 or 15 years ago. >> [inaudible] >> we will know in five years. remember this is a 10 year path. if we have not met those requirements in five years, we will convene a convention and they will spend additional monies. if they do it right, i am totally confident. also in this goal, 40% of people never came across our border. they just came on a visa and overstayed. we are addressing that side of it, that aspect. >> a lot of people have questions. >> make your answers shorter. [laughter] >> alex, anita, the lady in the stripe top whose name i don't know. jordan. that's probably as far down the list we will get. alex. >> the u.s. chair of commerce endorsed or legislation. but the cap on visas for construction workers -- >> everyone is unhappy. but they signed up. everyone is unhappy. but they signed up. you're going to have to show me a major group that is in
4:31 pm
opposition. of course they're unhappy. on the other side they're very unhappy as well with the provisions of the bill. that is what compromise is called. >> next question. [laughter] >> senator schumer, would you accept a 50% increase in the number of visas, h1 -- >> this is a carefully negotiated package. i talked to tom donohue a great deal. he is from brooklyn, too. we basically said -- >> [indiscernible] >> that's what jeff flake said. >> they speak a different language. >> he said, the lady at the border heard my new york accent and already thought she was in new york. [laughter] anyway, basically we said, we're going to be quite generous on high-end, college graduates,
4:32 pm
stem and all of that because those jobs, there is a consensus that there is a shortage. lockheed mtito hire 500 engineers in syracuse. they have rit 100 miles to the west, rpi 100 miles to the east. they could not get the engineers. generous on the high end. much tougher on the low skilled end, with the exception of agriculture, because we know americans don't do that work. it's a pretty tough bill on the low end. it provides for needs of people have. even the smaller construction industry, they have said, we
4:33 pm
want to change, but we're not going against the bill because nobody really is. john said, nobody really wants to go against the bill. the bottom line is that it is a carefully balanced situation, and i think everyone's going to go along with it. >> one of the reasons they went along with it is the status quo is totally unacceptable in america today. it's unacceptable to have 11 million human beings in our society without any of the rights and protections of citizenship or a least a legal status. >> it sounds like you would vote against -- >> i'm not going to nail down on anything specific. imagine us changing the balance. >> [inaudible] >> can you speak up, ma'am?
4:34 pm
>> [indiscernible] >> we decided you can't do individual bills. people say, what about me? lasttried that in the congress. it got nowhere in the senate. the hispanic community said, what about us? the agriculture community said, what about us? what we found is, ironically, the best way to pass immigration legislation is actually a comprehensive bill. that can achieve more balance. everybody can get much but not all of what they want.
4:35 pm
i think the idea of doing separate bills is just not going to work. it's not worked in the past. it's not going to work in the future. >> dick durbin, to his credit, his advocacy for the dreamers, always one to bring up the dream act. which is fine. and now let's secure the border. it has got to be a comprehensive approach. >> changing the subject, the marketplace fairness act is before the senate this week. i spoke yesterday to -- [inaudible] to abandon the current internet laws. california has an economic presence law. amazon is also concerned that some states would retain their
4:36 pm
current laws, not opt into the national system. i when it came to committee, was reluctant to support the bill because it did not allow for the different systems within the state, particularly new york. yorkotiated with new state, senators durbin and -- they have made changes in the bill so that states would have a different system but still collect the sales tax will be allowed. now new york state supports the bill. but new york will not have to change its system. the bill will allow new york state system and other states to continue as is. >> anita. >> i want to switch topics. i wonder if you can comment on the gun legislation from last
4:37 pm
week. didhe obama administration all they could. >> well, look, i have been involved in gun legislation since 1994. i was the house sponsor of dianne feinstein's assault weapons ban when it was in the senate. i think it is unfair to blame the president. the president worked really hard on this issue. you put political capital on the line. he made it one of the centerpieces of his state of the union address. he went all around the country to try to rally support. my view, the weight to change the votes on the gush -- gun issue is to, besides filling of the conscience of people, it plays a much larger role than many people credit for. you need to change the
4:38 pm
underlying table. what has to happen is how are we able to pass these bills in 1984? the broad middle rows up and said, we want rational laws on guns. why? crime was ripping america. that past and elections occurred. those bills were blamed for democrats losing control of the house and the senate. then for 20 years not much happened. i think we are at a turning point. this is my own view. i think the average person, we know that the pro-gun folks have intensity and the safety people have the numbers.
4:39 pm
i think the numbers are getting more intense. state went around my own last weekend, for the first time in very conservative areas, i heard from pro-nra people who said you are taking away my rights. i also heard from people who said, keep at it. i never heard that in those areas before. i think you might find some changes out there. a lot of senators who thought it was safe to vote against it because of the intensity. i'm not so sure anymore. >> i want to apply the senator manchin and senator toomey for coming for him with a bill i thought was common sense. i think we needed to find that internet aspect of gun sales a little better. i do agree that i think the
4:40 pm
issue will come back. they also have to address the fact that we are not prosecuting criminals who failed background checks. we are not addressing the issue of appraising people who are doing terrible things whether orbe in tucson, arizona, aurora, colorado, or newtown, connecticut. that is probably the toughest part of this issue. ende do individual rights and obligation to protect the population begins? we need to have that national discussion i think in more depth. >> can you talk more on the administration's role? >> i don't know what they could've done. i do not know what more -- whenever one of these things fail, we point the finger and
4:41 pm
blame. but i don't want to do that except to applaud manchin and tommey who have very sizable and influential second amendment defenders. >> last question. >> thank you. this is a segue back to immigration. senators both of you -- what do you think is the most useful role that president obama could play in this immigration debate? >> i think the role that he is playing now is that he has encouraged the group of us that came up with this legislation. publicexpressed his support of it. at the same time, he has not
4:42 pm
try to dictate the terms of it. beennk that his role has very appropriate. if we get it to the senate, i think he will again weigh in to try to convince our colleagues in the house to move forward with it. i think his role has been exactly appropriate. >> i agree with that completely. i asked the president on several occasions to give our gang or group of eight or whatever space. we were coming up with a bipartisan compromise. the president views on some things are some things that i would agree with personally, but we can i get a bipartisan compromise on. he was terrific. i would describe his role as just about perfect. >> i wouldn't go that far. >> i know you wouldn't.
4:43 pm
[laughter] >> he asked us to act. upgave us the space to come with our proposal. that is what we will need again. it has come from a bipartisan group in the senate. he is playing the role exactly right. mccaink you to senator and senator schumer. >> can i -- i do sense a slight change in the environment in the senate. i think there is a willingness to address some important issues in a fashion that was not the case to in the last four years. we have averted 51 votes and filibuster and moving forward. there was every opportunity. i emphasize opportunity for a grand bargain. for the first time in some time i harbor some optimism of a chance for a bipartisan
4:44 pm
approach to some compelling issues we are facing. >> i agree with john. there is a different mood in the senate. does, and i think john too, that our system goes through effective models by coming to bipartisan agreements. there is a desire among majority of people and both parties -- not everyone -- but the majority to do that. i think the session will be a lot more productive than the last few. >> which is not a high bar. [laughter] >> [indiscernible]
4:45 pm
>> i think it is the extreme dissatisfaction american people have expressed in our polling data. we all seek approval. why is part of the reason we do the things that we do and to serve the people effectively. the majority of americans think we're not doing that. sooner or later that does have an impact. the approval ratings are at all-time lows. if it continues along this path, we will see a third-party in the u.s. the overwhelming increase in voter registration in independent registration. they are voting independent because they do not find a home in either party. that dynamic will affect the political landscape.
4:46 pm
>> thank you. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] they appointm when a public defenders is that the public defender's job it is reliant on their approval. on theirs are judged efficiency often. how fast the the process cases? how quickly did they get through the dock it? -- docket? they will want someone to do their bidding. there were always arguing before the same judge. the problem with that is that they were then trading clients in a way. , ifrivate, paying client
4:47 pm
you let me spend time and take his case to trial, i will persuade the client to plead guilty. there was this trade-off going like you could cash in your favors on some of your clients. made for a very corrupt system. >> if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. tonight on "afterwords" on c- span2. a reporter's roundtable on the week's events. from "washington journal" this is just over 40 minutes. host: with us, seung min kim from politico and evan mcmorris- santoro from buzzfeed. for beingso much here. let's talk about what we learned last week and president obama talking about the
4:48 pm
potential of a chemical weapons. evan mcmorris-santoro, where we add in this? why is the white house's stance significant? guest: there has been a lot of debate. the obama administration said a few months ago, they drew the proverbial red line about chemical weapons, the idea that of chemical weapons were used, they would cross the line and we would see engagement. that is what people read about that. there were reports that some chemical weapons may have been used. shortly thereafter, the white house was engaged on that and some observers felt they change the way the red line works. the white house says it was a systematic use. we're seeing a lot of
4:49 pm
discussion about persian towards what might be u.s. involvement. it's unfair to say that will happen or not. the white house is now talking about using chemical weapons and what it means for how the united states in gauges. host: the associated press has this headline -- obama's syrian caution. one of the conversations going on in congress on what the u.s. could and should be doing? guest: 2 are seeing the varied reaction. john mccain has been pushing for more action on syria. you have senator feinstein to maturity intelligence committees saying the red line been crossed and we need to explore the options on the table, but you do see some
4:50 pm
caution from lawmakers. i think it's related to what happened in iraq. we don't know for sure what's going on. there have been careful looking at all the information and there is some caution as well. you do not want to rush into things too quickly before you have a full assessment of the situation. host: other international relationships as we see this playing out. guest: one thing they're trying to do is to engage the international community in this conversation. one thing obama and the white house has said the they want to talk to our allies, talk to the u.n., get that engagement. that is something we have seen them talk about from the beginning. they want to act with allies and the rest of the world community behind them. part of what they're doing right now is talking with those
4:51 pm
leaders, talking with the u.n., seeing what that means. it sends a message to countries like north korea that we will be acting. to be the only guy facing a bunch of other guys, it makes it easier for them to make their point. host: seung min kim, we see a headline in "the wall street journal" looking at the delays in airports and the faa what is the latest. >> a new law has been passed to allow the faa to reconfigure their filing so you do not have all these delays at the airport. this is all part of the sequester. the across-the-board cuts were supposed to hit everyone pretty evenly, but people were getting angry, long lines, including members of congress, so when the delays started to get along bear, congress look at it. >> i was as different from other issues pending in congress?
4:52 pm
we have been hearing a lot of conversation about faa and legislation in general. >> the faa is so unusual in terms of its sequester. they have been slow to figure out the situation on the other parts of the budget, basically everything. still, once the political pressure started to kick in, they were able to act pretty quickly. guest: i think this is the fastest i've seen. guest: you blink and they have a solution. boom. everyone acted really fast. >> there was an attempt by majority leader eric cantor. the headline says, house gop leaders are dealt a setback in health vote battle. what happened? guest: this is what he calls
4:53 pm
the make life work for americans. mistakes funding from the prevention side and feeds it into high-risk school programs. ity did not like it because tampered with the medicare act. there are many conservatives who are very angry about this. there a single mission is to repeal obamacare, not make it better. the year groups like heritage action, many conservative members in the house and they will not vote for those and once the conservative rebellions starts to build, he had to pull the bill from the floor. host: evan mcmorris-santoro, what is the white house's read on this? guest: they try to get the caucus, their party to do something, and there is a lot
4:54 pm
-- they look on this with a lot of amusement in the white house. this is the point and making for a long time a point often made is that the republican caucus helicon press, the house specifically, it is so extreme that there is no chance for any bipartisan action. obama always talk about working together and vote like this help to make the white house's point. host: evan mcmorris-santoro from buzzfeed and seung min kim from politico. we are previewing the week ahead in washington. if you would like to join the conversation, the numbers are on your screen.
4:55 pm
before we get to the phones, we see the questions over gun control. that was settled a week and a half ago. on guns, a wait-and-see approach becomes slim to none. then you look up the politics of this. in "the new york times," there is coverage of paying little cost for defying president obama's bush for gun control. where is the political fallout in this? guest: this is a very important issue that polarizes a lot of people, but if you look at just the politics it's very interesting. on one hand, you have a powerful national rifle association. but the fallout from this has been what do the gun control advocates do with this? there's been some confusion. they're going to be running ads in arkansas, a democrat who the voted against it, but
4:56 pm
general problem they seem to be having is that they do not have the kind of fired up masses you saw in the tea party movement in 2009-2010. is probably not going have to face hundreds if not thousands of angry people windigos outhouse on this issue, makes it harder for people trying to get gun control past. guest: i agree. it's only going to help your potential. host: from cq, this did not push the senate to pass a gun bill. the senate outcome may limit pressure on the house to act.
4:57 pm
where the intersection between polling and the political realities in washington? guest: there are people who ask americans, should we have background checks expanded? not only the most americans think we should, most americans think we already do. there's a lot of broad agreement on the concept, but there's a lot of talk about the angry masses. how focused our people on this issue? how much does it make them want to get out there and participate in democracy? it's not totally clear that guns is the kind of issue that moves people enough for gun control advocates to really have a huge influence on the national debate. host: we saw the five presidents gathered this week for president george bush's library dedication and unavailing. a look at george w. bush in the rearview mirror. guest: what struck me about
4:58 pm
that opening is obama used it to actually push on the republicans in congress now. he went to two appearances and spoke about how bush was bipartisan and work with ted kennedy to make no child left behind. you have this guy who a lot of democrats and most republicans do not look too fondly on. he was one of his toughest critics. he is now saying that he wants to see the republicans have to work with now be more like george w. bush and be more open to crossing the aisle. they would say his policies were a bit more palatable to democrats and he was interested in things that are more agreeable, but it was interesting to see the politics of input was the president
4:59 pm
saying this guy, and the man who was sort of ran against, you should be more like him. host: the recent piece you did on evan mcmorris-santoro, more like george w. bush. . 40 minutes to talk with your right now and seung min kim from politico. the numbers, again, on your screen. seung min kim, as you watched the president's gather in texas, what were you watching? guest: i was watching comments on comprehensive immigration reform. that will be the battle this year. with the bush library opening, president bush had pushed his last major effort to enact comprehensive immigration reform in 2007.
5:00 pm
it failed in the senate, june 2007, and it was a big disappointment. president obama use the occasion to say that he deserves a lot of credit for what he tried to do guest: it was quite a policy speech. obama is very political in that speech. i was surprised how much obama used the occasion to make his political points. host: let's go the republican line. good morning, greg. i er: hi, i'm calling -- know i'm in the minority particularly in the state of connecticut being a republican. the issue of child safety and people safety, immediately turns to gun control without a think
5:01 pm
tank of thoughts of possibly other things can be done. feel separated from the country when president obama ives such a scathing reprimand on who to those who do not support gun control. i see gun control a portion of the process of reducing crime but it is certainly, always seems to be the first thing that the politicians jump on. i thinking background checks -- when we ask people in a poll do you support university versal background check, the obvious answer is always yes. the devil is in the details. when one looks into background checks i think we find that one, they don't accomplish what we want them to accomplish and that is to keep the weapons out of he hands of mentally
5:02 pm
incompetent criminal or criminals, it proves that it does not accomplish that. host: let's get a response from seung min kim. caller: think is correct. we see the polls that 90% of americans support standard background checkings but when the senators rejected the proposal they look at the details and they figured out how this can affect my constituents back in alaska, back in montana. guest: that is a good point. we talked about the politics and this is more on the side of the gun control advocate because they are new on the scene relative to n.r.a. a lot of people who care a lot about gun safety and protecting children in schools and stuff they looked at the proposals and they think is not the right way to solve the problem. there's two sides to this
5:03 pm
political debate and a lot of the coverage covers -- we talk a a lot of the members. looking at this stuff and as the caller said we should focus on other things such as the mental health instead of guns. it is a big topic. caller: good morning. one quick comment for c-span. sometimes it is intimidating for us callers because you're putting us on with these professional spin people from the media so it seems different from a caller program. host: if there's anything we can do to make you feel comfortable we'll do it. caller: i appreciate that. host: sure. caller: that being said, there's a couple of people that commented this morning about the media event down there with the president and one tweeted in something about fideling while the city burns.
5:04 pm
do you think that the cozy relationship between the political structure and the media is a problem? host: before we get a response interest them, what do you think about it? caller: it seems to me the country is in trouble. you know, the middle class is really feeling it. obviously, the real estate market is still feeling it, except, of course in washington and new york. so, you know, it just seems like the power structures are doing well and the rest of the country is, like the guy said, everyone in new york and washington are fiddling while the rest of the country burns. host: ok, we started off our show by talk that's this morning. what are your thoughts, evan, in response to what the caller is saying? guest: in politics there are up
5:05 pm
ticks. no one that i know, i think goes to the white house correspondents' association dinner and think they are swayed in their coverage or change what they report on. oftentimes it can look like not greatest things. i think the dinner is fine and i think it is just a fun thing that they do every year. a lot of people feel like the caller about it, there are reporters and the media is something we should look at. guest: i agree. does generate $100,000 in scholarships. but there is the issue, we're still in a recovering economy, this isal difficult month with what happened in west, texas and at the boston marathon. there are issues when you have a grand dinner, i would say in
5:06 pm
washington. host: buzzfeed was not at the dinner. tell us about why buzzfeed had a separate event? guest: this is above my pay rate they tell me where to go and i go. host: you were at the buzzfeed party? guest: i was at the party. we had great reporters, we had the cast of "house of cards" that was cool to see them. i think there are a lot of events that go on in the city and there's a lot of things that happen here in you live here in washington and a lost people can't go to the dinner so buzzfeed had a dinner too. host: why can't everyone go to the incident center guest: you have a certain size ballroom. you can't put the entire city in there. host: let's go to the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a 66-year-old retired
5:07 pm
individual. i have never in my lifetime hated the president of the united states but i hate this man. he is the biggest liar that has ever been elected to the office and he continues to lie, make jokes and blow our money and put our children and our grandchildren in debt. host: what do you think about congress? caller: they don't realize what their health care is. they know their insurance rates ll go up when obamacare is implemented. host: what do you think of congress? caller: i will fight him every step of the way. host: dennis is not a fan of the president's charm. you can comment on that and he issue of health
5:08 pm
care. guest: when you have a lot of constituents, like our caller who is pushing congress to fight back every step of the way and i think that is why the presiden is trying to reach out, doing what we call a charm offensive, meeting with republican senators, meeting with democrat senators, meeting with the female senators making ashington more workable. host: the federal health care law is an issue. we're watching how the public relations momentum is work on that. the obama administration is trying to get out the word of the exchanges that are happening soon. what is the pulse here in washington in terms of the public opinion of what is coming down the pike? guest: there's bipartisan talk that there are concern when the law kicks it will be tough.
5:09 pm
democrats from montana are now retiring. i think the white house is trying to very hard to push this message of trying to educate people about the law and ready for it. the speech that obama gave to planned parenthood just this week and a large focus of the speech was i need you to help me tell everybody that you serve with health care and this law is here and what will they can do and what it means for them. that is a very important part of what the white house will do for the next couple of months. host: one of the tweeters asked earlier about this question of congress and possibly exemptions for the health care law for staffers. guest: that story landed very hard. it definitely caused a lot of controversy. didn't harry reed say it is not actually happening?
5:10 pm
guest: the spokesperson says there has never been conversations about exemptioning lawmakers and aiding from exempting them but it depends on how you interpret the law. when there was a debate over health care law and that's what staffers and lawmakers trying to work out right now. host: let's hear from ron, democratic line. caller: i just want to high liability, the tea party have said they really believe that we should cut back our budget and save money. they say that is what they are all about. but really they want to spend lots of money -- it is just a matter of having different priorities. when all these shootings came out, all of a sudden they are major advocates for armed guards in every school. you have 130,000 schools,
5:11 pm
there's many more than that. if you spend $50,000, which is a too low figure to have an armed guard in every school, you're talking about billions of dollars. this is an issue for them, they are about spending money on what they want. if something threatens their guns then they are concerned about the mental health care. it is a joke. guest: he's right. there are people who have different priorities and that drives the conversation in washington. it is not so cut and dry that i'm against all spending or i'm for all spending. you have these smart callers who are paying attention and there is a lot of overlap. spending money is what everyone that comes to washington likes to do but they don't know what to spend it on. hat is the fight we normally have.
5:12 pm
host: evan mcmorris-santoro works if buzzfeed. he also coves elections for national journals' hot line back in 2008 and he was a reporter in north carolina and tennessee. seung min kim is from politico and she is a congressional reporter. miami, florida, is our next caller location, robert is an independent. caller: i don't think the media has a close relationship with the president. in fact, i think some of the media -- it is like entertainment journalism. ey go on bill maher show and "the tonight show." are they serious journalists are they trying to get at some truth? are they trying to address some issue and get the information out there? it seems to me, that is not the
5:13 pm
case. i remember a couple of years ago larry king and barbara walters commented that the fact you that you don't have the type of journalists anywhere. you let the question speak for themselves, it is not about the person. if you have someone like the garage on msnbc who lost his job. he had this huge ego and he just wanted -- he just wanted his work to be said and he believed it so it was all about him, just like the people on fox. where is the real journalism going on? where has that gone? you know, 30, 40 some odd years, .hat has happened to journalism can you respond to that, please? ost: where do you get your
5:14 pm
news? caller: i watch a lot of c-span. i love charlie rose. i don't like the fact that he's not an on cbs. he does not fit that type of program. again, he has great questions and he asks individuals that you don't see on television, these are smart people, they talk about all sorts of things from architecture to marketing. in 60 minutes, i think they do a decent job as well. you don't have that in regular tv. everyone wants to be a star. like they want to be like entertainment jourpists like i said before. -- journalists like i said before. like the caller who said he hates president obama i assume he gets his information from fox. he forms his opinion about someone he obviously, don't know and don't want to know and it
5:15 pm
clearly is not the case. this guy is not what these people have made him out to be. host: let's get a response for our guests. i think serious journalists are on c-span "washington journal." host: shout out. guest: this is an interesting job we're in. people are upset with how things are covered or what they are doing. i can say to the caller that the complaints -- you talk about the press being too hard on obama or not hard enough on obama or whatever. i get yelled at on twitter from people who like obama, who don't like obama. i think everybody sort of -- people here are trying to do this job and i don't think there is a close relationship, i sad earlier. i don't think there are people who are always trying to push an
5:16 pm
agenda, some people may be are. i think journalism is pretty good right now. i read a lot of it and i think it is good. i think. if people read a lot of sources and pay attention they will be pretty educated on what is going on. guest: i'm speaking for myself and hopefully for the rest of to doess corp. we we try serious journalists and we welcome the criticism of what we're doing. host: "the washington post" blogger says the republican party must get over ronald reagan to remain a force in national politics. the headline is tear down this icon. it says the g.o.p. needs a new poster child. jennifer looks at who the new icons could be of the republican party, some those who are
5:17 pm
hallenging the long standing i ideas, including marco rubio and paul ryan. where is the republican party in terms of the future direction and leadership. this is surprising to see this from jennifer ruben. guest: she knows how to get people nalkaway bap she has a point that there is a lot of talk in the republican party on who the leader is going to be. social ing to a conservatism type or someone in the middle? so you talk about someone like marco rubio is someone a lot of republicans would like to see take over but other people want that job too. there's a big debate on how this going to end up. guest: you have to look at marco rubio, paul ryan, the key one is
5:18 pm
marco rubio and you see that with the leadership role with immigration. he has take an lot of flak with the proposals. he has roled out on comprehensive immigration reform. he's willing to take the political heat because he knows not only in the policy side this is something that congress and the white house need to do to fix our immigration system but it is good politic for the future. host: seung min kim you've been reporting on immigration and where it is in congress. how do democrats get an immigration briefing and we see this one look at the times of things in the senate. what will you be watching for? guest: i'm going to watch how the bill change in committee. all members of the so-called gang of eight who have put together this 800-page immigration. we're waiting if the committee process to see how we can tweak it, change it, senator marco
5:19 pm
rubio has been the leading components in a slow moving process. we're excepting amendments that will allow the bill to also cover same-sex partners, we're excepting that from democrats. we're excepting from republican on more security measures, especially in light of the boston marathon attacks. that's what i'm looking for to see how it changes in the committees. st: let's go to jim in missouri. caller: good morning. i see the problem in the press with how does the health care apply to congress a second ago. i'm not meaning to single her out, this is across the board. all she did was quote harry reed. there was no cure rossty and there's a lot of lazyness there in terms of investigative journalism and none of that is being done. when you get a question like that, you need to know what
5:20 pm
applies and what doesn't not just what harry reed thinks about it. i'm not picking on one individual because i see that everywhere across the country. host: to get some context, gym, the story that seung min kim was talking about was from politico and it was a back and forth between legislators who were arguing over what was going to happen with obamacare and the aides that are looking for an exemption. we saw push back from legislators after that. let's get a response from our ests and see if you have a follow-up. guest: as reporters we try to do our best. but what harry reed says is important. it is what they are trying to do or what they are trying to not to do, which the the story here.
5:21 pm
guest: she's just a report earn you should read all of her stuff. host: is there a difference between the tennis table match of what happens in washington and the longer format pieces ?hat jourpists often want to do guest: a lot of these issues -- we had a caller call earlier if you look at it, the tea party wants to spend money. a lot of what we get into is a lot of these political fights are often about what is going to win? so we have to cover that as well. it is an important part of how washington works, up or down it is a big part of how momentum works in the city. it is. people don't like it but it is true. there is a desire, you know, for all coverage and we do plenty of that too. washington works on two planes, there is this policy end and you have to know what the process
5:22 pm
is, what people are trying to do, whatheare ting change and how it will affect people. those changes don't occur unless this partnership happens too. we have to do both. host: jim, any comments to follow-up? caller: i understand that but still think there is a general problem there. you said the tea party wants to spend money. you're taking on the word of a democrat call their just called in. guest: i would argue with you on that. people have political parties and agentdies when they -- agendas and they want to change something, that takes money. it is not always true. there's a lot of people who want to cut government on the tea party side of things, that is true. but they also want to see the government do new things they are not doing now. that is going to cost money. it's true that everybody tries to spend money.
5:23 pm
it is just a matter of how much and where the money goes. host: you mentioned the boston marathon bombings, the impact it is having in terms of immigration and other questions before congress. for politico repeatedly looked at what lawmakers are saying and what they are talk about. guest: you're having a lot of lawmakers demanding answers about more of the suspects' baggeds, how they got into the united states before they move on any immigration measures. you also have pro-reform advocates, especially in members of the senate, that all this happened under the current immigration system and our bill does that. there's several reasons that senator schumer has noted there that ctronic systems so the suspects try to escape there is a way to track them once they
5:24 pm
enter and leave the country. this is one way this would fix things. you have people saying let's take a month or two months, let's take a breather and then deal with immigration then. host: we heard the president closed his remark on a serious note where he was commending "the boston globe" on their report and what is happening in boston, and also west, texas. what is the tone right now? guest: it is a somber week and a somber month. there has been a lot of thicks that have been tough to see. -- thing that have been tough to see. in west, texas things have being discussed less. but in terms of boston, a lot of
5:25 pm
stuff has been talkinged about. so we're just getting started on how boston will reverberate out for the rest of the year probably. host: let's go to the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to piggyback off of what dennis was speaking on. it saddens my heart to hear someone get on live tv to say he hates our president. i'm a black female with five children and a husband that takes very good care of us. lovely family. we were never political for the longest time. just watching how -- how the landscape is and how people are today. i've never seen anything like this in my life. i think it is horrible. i don't understand why people don't talk about what is going on politically.
5:26 pm
it's horrible. it's sad. our kids are growing up watching this rhetoric from both sides d there's so much racial prejudice and people don't talk about it and it scares me. we should be involved with our children more and threment know what is going on. people need to know this is not just one president, this one man is making everything bad. i've been following this lately, it is not just him. it is everybody, especially congress. congress hates this man so much they are willing to throw the whole congress under the bus just to make a point. host: has your opinion of the leadership shifted over past couple of years? caller: there's some things i don't agree with him but all in all i think he's doing a good job, i really do.
5:27 pm
dailyin the recent poll a presidential poll. it shows 49% of voters approve of the president's job performance. 49% disapproves and it shows that 28% strongly approves on he way that president obama is performing. i think evan mcmorris-santoro more comments on what the caller was talking about. guest: it is a polarized country right now. host: congress is not in session this coming week in washington. what will they be doing and what are you going to be watching when they go home to the home districts and the conversations theyological have locally. guest: they will probably hear about other ways the so-called sequester is affecting their communities but also what is going on with education
5:28 pm
programs, law enforcement program, the military community s. if that throws congress into more action like what we saw with the f.a.a. i'm interested on hearing what they think about immigration reform. right now, the momentum is there to fix the immigration system but it also depends on what lawmakers hear from constituents back home. host: seung min kim with politico thank you for joining us this morning. evan mcmorris-santoro from buzzfeed, thanks to you as well. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" frank cilluffo examines u.s. security and emergency management in the wake of the boston bombings.
5:29 pm
"washington times" reporter talks about his report on federal rules for executive pay or contractors and white house roles to try to impose caps on it. >> she married at the age of 16 and helped to teach her husband to be a better read earn writer. by the time her husband assumes the presidency she's in poor herself in cludes an upstairs bedroom. she is the wife of president johnson. also on c-span radio and >> the name of the "secrets of ilicon valley" book.
5:30 pm
you write that silicon valley is its own ecosystem. >> it is based on croorp operation and collaboration. here in washington, d.c. that is a foreign concept. while many people have discussed elements of silicon valley, what i did was take a step back and a ng an outsider gave me unique perspective to allow me to draw men n and what is this that makes this culture connect? it is in committee system you have stanford university, your service providers, lawyer, bankers, spoors and many other factors that make up -- entrepreneurs and many other factors that make up this
5:31 pm
ecosystem and people become involved in the process of these ideas from start to finish. >> you're going to write that there is something between the air here in google and mountain view. >> that's correct. that is what i tried to capture the essence of. again, looking at it from an outsider's perspective on what would someone want to know to silicon valley if they have never been there. what can they learn from it? who is this book for? it is for entrepreneurs, people who are interested in how silicon valley works but all the way up to corporate america and government who can learn from the unique way of this economy that silicon valley is based on. meaning if you're trying to generate as a government and you're looking for ways to generate new revenue silicon valley has the answers. f you're trying to explore new
5:32 pm
invailings within your company -- innovation silicon valley has the answers. how is silicon valley from other places? so much is based on failure and learning from one's experiences but it is also recognizing you can be part of the process of adopting other people's ideas or you may have the idea for the next big thing. an ottom line is there is authenticity the way things are done in silicon valley. >> you gone on to right that failure is a badge of honor. >> it is. i have to say i'm not completely convinced across the board. i don't think any investor wants to go into an investor knowing that entrepreneur is going to fail. there is a budding average, out of 10 investments that they make
5:33 pm
they hope for one big hit, three will do ok, and the rest will probably fail. when you're talking about an individual angel investor, which is how i got my initial investment, i don't think she went into this investment wanting to fail. >> did she lose it? >> no, she has not lost it. how did silicon valley develop? >> that is such a fantastic story. it's a vast story and not one person owns that story. so when i was researching for this book and i people found out , did you go back to the 1950's when the electric industry and conductors started to evolve. but i go all the way back to the founder of stanford university and the commitment he made in recognizing that students needed
5:34 pm
to have direct usefulness in life. he felt like science was the vanguard. it was something that was ignored by east coast universities so he was looking to build something different. on top of that what he did, he made sure there was connectivety between stanford and the surrounding industry, the little there was at the time in addition to investors being involved in civil civic investments as well. really having a voice in the surrounding communities. then from there, i identify of the leading factors that created silicon valley. ing i think the whole spinout culture, there were eight guys that came to work for him am the semiconductors who got fed up with his management style and wanted to continue down this
5:35 pm
path to work on semiconductors. they all worked together in new jersey and he could not make up his mind what they wanted to do. these guys explored what was own the as the first venture capital tallism at the time. what they did was develop semiconductor and out of those companies spun out other companies and out of those companies, those original co-founders were all involved in the original company they estimate up to 130 companies that have come out of it. accessible to spin out, if you're dissatisfied or have a great idea to start a company the next. >> who was stand ford and how
5:36 pm
the university come about? events. over tragic he made his money and came west during the gold rush. he made money really supplying miners with the tools they needed. but he realized the west was going to expand dramatically. so he recognized railroads, they needed transportation, they needed infrastructure. so he made an absolute fortune then ran for governor and got very involved in california, very involved at the federal level pen then, unfortunately, toand his wife jane who wait have their child they actually had him -- he was 44 and jane was 39 years old. het prior to his 15 birthday
5:37 pm
died in florence italy. so the stanfords looked for an theirunity to commemorate son and how can all of california's children be their children? how can they best serve this growing population and out came the birth of the university. >> herbert hoover was the first to attend stanford. >> he deemed the first student because he moved into the dorm first. you borah piscione can under estimate the importance of silicon valley? >> you can't. we were living in washington, d.c. for 18 years and we lived out there seven years ago.
5:38 pm
everyone asked me do you want your kids go to stanford? i say no. let them live in a difficult winter. it was action academic environment that i was used to. now living there for nearly ven years, it is ununparalleled the clap a tive environment that stanford provides. it is so based on students working together that professors have to document on their syllabus when students can't work together. it is not just this continued foresight of collaboration and this commitment to science and now engineering and technology but it stanford works with the border and the surrounding communities but also works with the next generation of kids. starting with nursery school, it
5:39 pm
is remarkable that silicon valley kids have this additional advantage of being raised in the area irrespent of their social status is having the exposure of religion and entrepreneurship. i think most kids that attend stanford university has some desire of having to do some form of entrepreneurship either owning their own company or starting a start-up. >> in your book, "secrets of silicon valley" here's a quote pop i was endocumented into the destroy your enemy and eat your young. i was sold a bill of goods. i didn't do anything because most people in washington, d.c. don't do anything except to pine latest, erate over the
5:40 pm
political policy spin. >> yes. love for reat logo -- washington, d.c. it is a great place. now i've been a creator, creating three companies in nearly six years. i think the difference is the importance poff, which side of the political aisle you're on, who you support, which issue are you going to put forth trumps anything that would foster a collaborative and creative environment. so i went from this environment to asking me show who do you work for to who what is your passion and how can i help you? i went into a deculture shock we trusing understand this collaborative way of people not
5:41 pm
wanting something. >> you come from a republican h.w. bush, itorge is tough to be a conservative republican in silicon valley? >> no, it is not. people care about issues more than politic, per se. i did a briefing on capitol hill earlier and the questions kept coming up, how can washington get more engaged in silicon valley? my response was stay out. they don't want you there. allow them to do what they do best, which is technology and innovation. there is great concern for the environment and cleaning water and fixing problems that billions of people are affected to. in addition to recognizing that, union, there is an authenticity on the way things are done there. the value is placed on following through on your passion, which
5:42 pm
has nothing to do with politics. >> does silicon valley in general -- i hate to generalize like that -- does silicon valley pay attention what is going on until washington? no. no, if you look back recently there is a presence for the bigger companies overall but i think some of the greatest challenges, i read about this in "the wall street journey" what gets in the way? what is are the barriers to innovation? cisco just spent $50 million and he was here to testify about that. that is $50 million on what they consider an innovation tax fighting litigation that could be rather put into research and development. so there's not a great interest in washington, there's more about how to move the needle forward.
5:43 pm
they look to the east whether than to the west. >> did your washington experience help you in silicon valley? >> only in the sense of i developed a thick skin. as a entrepreneur, clearly you need a thick skin. but those skills don't transfer very well. i was schooled in the art of war. that is not the way that silicon valley operates. it is about how can i help you rather than you don't have to be my enemy. what was interesting to me, sometimes comp peters will figure out a creative way to partner together and cross their product and to validate it and give it credibility. >> you talked about innovation versus invention in silicon valley. >> yes. >> what do you mean? >> what i mean by that is
5:44 pm
countries that are concerned about replicate silicon valley think they need to be silicon valley. invention is the big idea but invention comes very, very -- we're definitely going through an expen anyial time but that is based on improving upon what is already existing out there. invention is a new concept -- a completely disruptive technology versus innovation can be a simple in terms of improving processes in your own local community. i tell these jurisdictions that i sometimes consult to now, that you should be looking to improve upon things. l.a., los angeles, was trying to fix its traffic problem. hey spent about $450 million synchronizing lights. that is innovation.
5:45 pm
it does not have to be this new disruptive technology. >> back to stanford. you write in "secrets of silicon valley" that professors are encouraged or allowed to be paid consultants to businesses. >> yeah. >> is that an unusual -- >> it is unusual. i understand it is done more so now but originally stanford came up with this concept because, again it was about having greater connect tivety to what is was going on in the business world. this all dates back to leeland stanford and that need to how to best prepare students can only be done through this seamless system and having the exposure. stanford also has an extremely strong licensing department. because of that, innovation or inventions, such as google have profitted dramatically because it was larry page who went to the licensing office and said, i
5:46 pm
need to paten this, i need to shop this around. this intention was not to build a company, initially. so the benefits of stanford they claim that over 6,000 companies have come out of stanford, whether the company itself or the business plan was created there. financially, they benefit tremendously. stanford made -- just offered its equity investment and google made $360 million in royalty income. not bad. >> speaking of google, is google the giant in silicon valley? >> i think there are many giants. i have to say i'm personal to google, only in the sense that i think what they did was not only adopt the silicon valley culture but they massively expanded it. what is so interesting to me, there are two ways of thought. they were willing to do what ever they could to create this
5:47 pm
incredible, creative environment for people to flourish and work within. rule r it was their 20% where they could have people a day a week to do what they want, or adopt more of the silicon valley lifestyle into the workplace. when we first arrived at google, i toured the campus, it is so colorful, it is two stories, how can people take it seriously? now they have expanded way beyond that. you go now and you will get run roller blades or some fun outdoor activity. it is allowing people to be creative. it is not about sitting at a cubicle and trying to innovate from that environment. >> so you have scythed some of the perks of working at google,
5:48 pm
on-sight -- on-site massages, roller blades. >> some people say it is designed to keep you there. when you can get your oil changed and your hair cut and your doctors appointment -- but the bottom line is to get the hassles all the daily needs done in the course of the work day so when they are told they can spend their quality time with their families. >> you write about going for an interview. >> i did. i wasn't perfectly planning for applying at a job but my resume did end up on the desk of someone there. i got a call from human resources and started going through that onerous process where you -- what google does is they get multiple people engaged in different departments to green light you to go to that
5:49 pm
next stage. the final stage, which i wrote that i did not make, they would have looked at my g.p.a. and s.a.t. scores. >> from 100 years ago. >> absolutely. i do understand, you know, trying to throw the most brilliant people in the room together. i'm not discrediting myself here algorithm the way that google does everything in the hiring process. >> does washington understand silicon valley? >> no, absolutely not. i'm not sure it is supposed to. i think washington is trying to look at it from a perspective on the industrial relic. we still think of silicon valley -- if you say the word entrepreneur it is not well
5:50 pm
embraced. it could be considered unemployed or not knowing what you want to do in life or you're a small business owner. nobody in sill coon valley thinks they are a small business. you think if you're going to build a company for 10 people or 10,000 people you have a dampte start-up mentality overall. i think washington is looking from, certainly an economic standpoint. we tend to look through the lens of economic and monetary and fiscal policy. so i think there is a lot to learn for this leg of the stool that silicon valley offers, which is culture and how culture can play into a regional economy. >> can you compare trit and the car industry to silicon valley and the differences or the alike? >> i don't know if they are alike. it has been extraordinary. first of all, the one time that silicon valley took in significant amount of money the
5:51 pm
company failed. no, i don't compare and i don't want to claim that i know detroit really well. i've only been there once. the turn around spokeswoman of the companies is fantastic. i think what detroit is doing is tting more intune with the tech knowledges of silicon valley. if you don't payation to what technologies is heading you're going to look at the same place. a multi-billion dollar company at went out of business, practically overnight without understanding where the technology was happening and the iphone really put kodak out of business. >> you mention country all over the world continuously send delegation to silicon valley to try to discover its secrets.
5:52 pm
just stand in the middle of the graduate school at the business of stanford and you will hear many different languages spoken. >> it is remarkable. it is very exciting. it is not just limited to the business school. you can be -- my 7-year-old twin boys took a math class in the math building of stanford, because again they offer these opportunities for children. you can can be standing there, i think their class was from 6:00 to 8:00 on a thursday night. you will see chinese tourists marching in the main quad with cameras everywhere. it is a must-stop place on their tour of the bay area. now i understand why. it truly is something to learn from. >> why did you move out there? >> originally, it was my
5:53 pm
husband's job. he has a job transfer but it is my work that has kept us there. >> you have started a couple of companies, what are they and how did you begin them? >> by default. i think it is not necessarily a typical silicon valley but one you hear often. i wanted to figure out what the start-up world was about. it was not real familiar with it. i ended up working for another start-up when i moved throughout and i kind of took a backseat and i thought this was interesting how this works. again, there was much more open dialogue and transparency than what i was used to. the c.e.o. would disclose all of the terms of how the company was doing. unfortunately, that particular company went belly up but the investor came to my co-founder and i said i like you guys
5:54 pm
figure out what you want to do and i will fund you. it was $250,000 with no business plan. not sure where we were going, he was an engineering i had a content bagged and we thought let's bridge this together and see what happens. we developed the company, which became one of the leading websites for women. out of that a couple years later, we built the leading community in entrepreneurship and private equity. really for the purposes for deal flow we opened that up as well to recognize that in order to have deal flow that a lot of women needed to be at the table to be able to participant. lastly, i got fascinated with where science was heading and realize after spending time researching this book, i needed to change the school where my
5:55 pm
kids were attending. i was fascinating by those future research in robotics and technology and felt there needs to be a gaming on the way boys like to play but having them bet explode sure to where future technologies lie. our academic system is so trapped in a 20th century work force and we want it to thrive to 21st century work force. >> what is that university? >> it is probably the most remarkable places i've been to. it has been co-founded between peter and ray, two of the great futuristic thinkers. what peter wanted to do was bring together the world's leading scientists, technologyists, entrepreneurs
5:56 pm
under one roof and figure out how to join together to best serve these technologies with particular focus on the greatest needs in the world. how do we get clean water? how do we get clean air? they have their areas of discipline and it really brought together numerous people around the world, not just for the purposes of a four-year traditional university, which it is not. it is more for an executive education program for entrepreneurs in between entrepreneurships and more executive warning over longer period of time where is skeeves can come from traditional companies and learn what innovation is all about. >> we only have a few minutes left. you write upon moving to silicon valley, we were told it was easy to meet people but hard to get to know them. >> it was.
5:57 pm
it is an entrenched community. on one hand, it was incredibly open i will be standing in line at starbucks or the bank or whatever. people will just talk to you and they found out you were new too town. ut there is a little bit of an entrenched around stanford. you're an alumni of stanford or of this company. but it is the tithe collaboration that makes silicon valley what it. so much is based on these relationships that came out of stanford or existing companies. it takes a little time to find your rhythm there. >> what is the down side to silicon valley? >> there's a lot of concern with the socioeconomic status. it is incredibly expensive place to live. i write about the cost of housing. there was an article tpwhraming
5:58 pm
housing costs of silicon valley on the entire world crisis. they felt if more people could enter in silicon valley we could have more opportunities, and advancements for people to get engaged in the silicon valley offer. the questions i always have is there a point when there is touch technology, touch availability, too much exposure? once that is out there, that is it. >> deborah piscione, the author "secrets of silicon valley" is the book. this is the communicaters on c-span. >> c-span created by america's cable companies in 199. brought to you as a public service by your television
5:59 pm
provider. >> i went in, i walked into the little kiosk i said i'm here to report. a guard came up and said i knew one of your campaign managers in ohio. i said ok. i got in there and here you have hate mail. it was from california and massachusetts. you have hate mail waiting on you. you go through the most embarrassing part of the stripdown. then i got into the intake, walked into prison, down into the courtyard. the warden won't use the language i do in the book but the man that was supposed to take me around get away from him and he can find his own way. i'm in these newbie clothes they call them, like pajama pants. one of the prisoners said where is your escort? i said i don't know some little
6:00 pm
guy yelled. he took me the back way of the laundry room. a man is sitting there and said are you theessman? i said used to be. you were a republican, aren't you? well, republicans put me in here. i was the mayor of east cleveland. welcome, i will get you clothes. >> >> joining us from the -- adam smith. he is the ranking democrat on the house armed services committee. nike for being with us on "newsmakers." michaels fromjim "usa today," who joins defense issues. congressman, the situation continuing to develop in syria, we want to turn j

Washington This Week
CSPAN April 28, 2013 2:00pm-6:01pm EDT


TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 32, Washington 28, Boston 26, Faa 13, United States 12, New York 12, America 9, Schumer 8, Texas 8, U.s. 8, Marco Rubio 5, Obama 5, California 5, Arizona 5, Harry Reed 4, Durbin 4, Chuck 4, Paul Ryan 4, Obama Administration 4, Google 4
Network CSPAN
Duration 04:01:00
Scanned in Richmond, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 43
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 4/28/2013